Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner So how do you handle people who say...

"classical's alright, I guess. But all they do is play the notes someone else already wrote. The real talent is in people who come up with their own stuff."

Or some other such nonsense? It's one of those things that's hard to explain to someone who's obviously ignorant on the subject of music.

The answer? "So why are you listening to anyone instead of playing yourself?"

Both types of music require talent. The statement is therefore false and merely a provocation, as one talent is no more "real" than the other. Couched as a declaration, for example, "I find pianists who play original music more interesting than those who play classical", it is a true statement.

I would have replied, "It seems to me that both activities require considerable talent of differing type."

give them a good kick in the balls or a punch in the face...

I think it's considerably harder to play a piece than to improvise. No one's going to accuse you of missing notes if you improvise, nor will they rip you apart for interpretation, tempo markings, continuity, etc. etc.

I would disagree with that. I'm not sure what improvisation you have listened to, but it is often just as structured and polished as written music, and to say that interpretation is not important is definitely wrong IMO. I feel attuned to playing written music and writing our own, while other pianists would feel more comfortable improvising. They are not on the same level and it's quite impossible to compare them in difficulty, it is just a matter of what you practise more.

" . . . all they do is play the notes someone else already wrote."

But they all play the same notes differently, yet within a tradional performance practice. Therein lies the creativity and the talent. It's subtle, it's highly nuanced, and requires an experienced and active listener.

Tomasino

Nice.

No, that's the answer to a different question:

"What do you say to someone who claims that nothing really exists?"

You show them two fists, and say, "Here's one thing, and here's another."

Of course, this has been anticipated:

Among students of philosophy, Dr. [Samuel] Johnson is perhaps best known for his "refutation" of Bishop Berkeley's idealism. During a conversation with his biographer [Boswell], Johnson became infuriated at the suggestion that Berkeley's immaterialism [claiming that nothing really exists] could not be refuted. In his anger, Johnson powerfully kicked a nearby stone and proclaimed, of Berkeley's theory, that "I refute it thus! -Wikipedia

I was made fun of in elementary school for only listening to Bach and Chopin. Now 13, im the only one my age in the galaxy i supose that doesn't listen to Linking-Park (or whatever).


And in the answer:

"If you think its so easy, YOU come up on a stage and play it in front of 200 people!"

Perhaps what we do is a lot like "Paint by Number." You can by at the store a canvas which has all of the lines already drawn, and each area on the canvas is marked by a number to tell you what color to paint it. That way you can paint the canvas and it will look as the artist already painted it.

But it's not so simple. If you paint by number and all you do is just fill in what you're told to fill in, your painting might look splotchy and unnatural. But if you are a good painter, you might shade the colors a little bit. You might paint a little darker here and a little lighter there. You might emphasize borders around particular objects or paint over borders to enlarge, diminish, or mix other objects. To paraphrase Gustav Mahler, "The canvas holds everything that is important in painting by number, except for that which is essential."


So it is when we play music. The actual quote by Mahler goes something like: "The score holds everything that is important in music, except for that which is essential." If all you do is play what is written in the score - if you just play the notes as written, and the rhythms as written, and the dynamics as written, and the phrasing as writtten - it will sound like a midi file: lifeless and dull. The real art is in the interpretation of the score. The art is in the style. The art is in how one crescendos and how one accelerates. The art is in how loud and how soft, how fast and how slow. The art is in how one stretches the rhythm here and there with natural-feeling rubato. The art is in how one emphasizes the structure of the music, and plays in such a manner that particular moments are highlighted over others. The art is not just playing the notes, but in making the notes sound logically connected and organized, and in making a musical impression upon the audience.

To paraphrase a quote I heard, a fairly good answer might be: " I never argue with idiots. If I did, an observer wouldn't be able to tell us apart."

I wouldn't say that they're idiots. It's a legitimate question, and a good question that probably a lot of musicians - myself included - have asked ourselves before.

It doesn't seem immediately that it would be so creative. After all, the composer does tell us what notes to play, and he does tell us what rhythms to play, and he does tell us where to crescendo, decrescendo, accelerate, decellerate, accent, etc.


Maybe another analogy would be to acting. The script contains all of the lines, and often it also contains directions for how to act, how to speak, and how the background scenery should be set up. Sometimes the script even tells the actor how to walk, and from what direction, and where on the stage to stand.

But if you watch the same play more than once, with different casts, it's different. Even with the same director - I was in a show of Guys and Dolls a long time ago, and I just saw the same musical again last year with the same director, and I was shocked at how different it was. I was in the same play a long time ago with a different director, and that was very different as well.

When actors audition for a play or a movie, maybe a very large number of people will audition for one part - and they are (almost) all probably very good actors, or else they wouldn't be auditioning. But only one gets the part. The directors listen, and maybe they like how some are acting the parts and they don't like how others are acting the parts, and some act similarly to how the directors envision the part to be played. They all act differently, even though the lines and context are the same. They are all creative, because what they do is so much more than just what they are told to do in the script. Anyone can read the lines, and anyone can walk around on stage wearing a costume, but it takes a truly creative and powerful actor to make the part alive and convincing and enjoyable.

You could compare it to an actor playing a role in a comedy film, and a stand-up comedian. The actor would have been given the tools to make his role funny through the script, but there is a considerable amount of work on his part to bring it to life. The stand-up comedian might have some ideas before hand, but it would be up to him to fill in the gaps, with a similar attitude to pulling off his 'role'. However the actor has the ability to spend much more time practising and polishing his role beforehand, while the stand-up comedian would have to rely on a mixture of luck and his own abilities.

I definitely agree with you on the differences between different performances in other mediums - I have seen Julius Caeser (Shakespeare..) twice, and even though it was from the same company, they were wildly different.

Look, you need to find yourself some better company. What State are you in?

Speaking of Shakespeare, I would have said something like

Oh so if you compare a Shakespeare interpreter such as Sir Laurence Olivier to someone who just makes a bunch of stuff up whenever they speak - like you - you would be the real talent...?

:p

I would respond by telling them that:

Elton John sang Bernie Taupin's lyrics.

Without George Martin's help, the Beatles wouldn't have done nearly as well.

James Taylor owes his sound to Jim Olson. Thom Yorke owes his to a small army of programmers and electrical engineers.

Even an Irish lad singing an Irish song solo that he himself made up is drawing upon the influence of those who came before him.


Seriously...there isn't an artist on the planet who doesn't get an enormous amount of help from others. Whether it's notes, sounds, lyrics, harmony, color, or rhythm, it all comes from somewhere else. The artist's individuality and originality comes from the way they dissect and reassemble their influences (whether consciously done or not.) So I use Schumann's notes when I play, I still shape the rhythmic and tonal concept of the piece, and my motions are the ones being translated into sound, not his.

At least classical musicians give the composers credit. When's the last time you saw a pop singer give credit to the songwriters on the front cover, or did you think Christina Aguilera actually writes all her own stuff?

By smiling disdainfully... The person or group becomes embarrassed, and will try to find out how things really are. It's always better to make them find out themselves...

The thing is, most people are ignorant of just how much time and hard work goes into playing the piano. Period. Whether someone is coming up with their own stuff or playing the dots, it requires hours and hours, discipline, tenacity, and sacrifice. If they are too deaf to hear those things pouring through the notes you play, then yeah, a disdainful smile, or an icy, "Oh, what an interesting point of view!" or perhaps beating them to death with live weasels, are all justifiable reactions.

I like Kriesler's points - no one does anything without influence from others....and some artists are not nearly as good without their missing partner....Paul McCartney without John Lennon tends to be a lightweight, saccharine tunesmith - but when he's paired up with someone with a more Lennon-like edge (Elvis Costello) for example, he puts out great work (Check out Flowers in the Dirt - probably his best post-Beatles album).

James Taylor owes is (current) sound to Jim Olson - on his first albums, he was just playing Martin guitars....but Olson is his current axe. Olson used to have up to a 5-year waiting list...but I think he's scrapped that recently, instead, for $12.5K, you can get one in 9 months. You can get a JT signature model for $15K.

As to those who look down on musicians who play classical music, let them try to do it.

99% of all music is crap...but 1% of all music (I don't care what category it is) is great. The reason the classical genre holds up is because it's the 1% that survived to this day. The best endures, while the rest of it just gets lost in time. Classical musicians are paying their respects to the composers who were brilliant and dedicated enough to make music that endures.

To quote Isaac Newton, "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."